Voyager Newsletter - Issue No. 10

From: James Easton <voyager@ukonline.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 01:47:27 +0100
Fwd Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 22:25:57 -0400
Subject: Voyager Newsletter - Issue No. 10
Voyager Newsletter - Issue No. 10
CONTENTS
1. Significant New Evidence Questions Foremost 'Flying Saucer'
Sighting.
2. Aliens Killed My Dog and Made Me Poor - Send Money.
3. Introspection.
4. The Alien Autopsy and Some Intriguing Connections.
5. Lost and Found One ET Spaceship - Contact the Weather
Bureau.
6. Ever Decreasing Circles.
O0O~O0O~O0O~O0O
1. Significant New Evidence Questions Foremost 'Flying Saucer'
Sighting.
A new breakthrough may help explain the puzzling sighting which
sparked 50 years of 'flying saucer' reports.
It was on 24 June 1947, that private pilot Kenneth Arnold
observed a formation of nine crescent-shaped objects near Mt.
Rainier. Although unable to identify them, Arnold believed they
were possibly a new type of jet and timed their airspeed as
approximately 1200 mph, much faster than any known aircraft.
However, the objects didn't fly like aircraft, they weaved and
undulated in a chain-like arrangement. Arnold later commented
how this resembled a flock of geese and compared the flight
characteristics to "the tail of a Chinese kite", also noting
that the objects in formation "flew like a saucer would if you
skipped it across the water". In the ensuing media and public
hysteria, this latter depiction of their flight, not their
shape, quickly became misinterpreted and 'flying saucers' were
born. Available on-line is a subsequent interview in which
Arnold acknowledges the flying saucer mythology that grew out of
this misunderstanding - see:
http://www.project1947.com/fig/kamurrow.htm
In 1997, researcher Martin Kottmeyer revisited this pivotal
'UFO' case and in an article entitled, 'Resolving Arnold'
concluded:
"In 'The Coming of the Saucers' he said they momentarily
disappeared 'behind a jagged peak that juts out from Mount
Rainier proper.' In his memoir for the First International UFO
Congress he says, 'When they turned length-wise or flat-wise to
me they were very thin and they actually disappeared from sight
behind a projection on Mount Rainier in the snowfield.' These
are not exactly the same thing, but they give a fair indication
of what to look for on the geological survey maps.
Arnold estimated the crafts were at an altitude of 9,200 feet
plus or minus 1,000. The task at hand is thus to locate some
feature extending above the 8,200 foot level. This yields a neat
little surprise. There are no such peaks between Mount Rainier
and Mount Adams. The closest thing I could find was Pyramid Peak
which stands only 6,937 feet tall in front of Mount Rainier's
base. There is a sharp little projection called Little Tacoma
which sticks out around the 10,000 foot level, but it is on the
wrong side of the mountain to be seen from Arnold's flight path.
It would be badly stretching things to suggest he got either his
position or altitude that far wrong".
One of the earliest, related references came from a lengthy
newspaper article in the 'Pendleton, Oregon East Oregonian' on
June 26, 1947:
"He said he could estimate the distance of the objects better
because an intervening peak once blocked his view of them. He
found the peak was 25 miles away, he related.
The Boise flyer said they flew on the west sides of Rainier and
Adams, adding that he believed this would make it more difficult
for them to be seen from the ground".
Both these perceptions were critical to Arnold's estimates of
the objects' distance and speed. Curiously, he was subsequently
unable to identify the landmark and its probable identity has
remained elusive - until now.
Following discussions with other interested researchers and the
perusal of several, different topographical maps, it seemed
there was only one likely candidate for 'Arnold's peak'.
Confident this could yet be determined, I wrote to some
indigenous sources who had expertise of the mountain range:
"I wonder if you could offer an informed opinion concerning a
historical observation near Mt. Rainier.
I'm trying to locate what was described by an observer in the
1940s as, `a jagged peak that juts out from the base of Mount
Rainier proper'.
Having research the locality from topographical maps, I'm still
uncertain about the identity of this peak and what constitutes
`the base of Mount Rainier proper'.
An important clue could be that the writer was a pilot and made
this observation from approximately over the town of Mineral and
heading in the mountain's direction.
Therefore, the `jagged peak' must be visible from that location,
to the west/southwest of Mt. Rainier.
Any opinions or comments would be greatly appreciated and could
be of invaluable help in my research.
It would be fully understood that any opinions would be a 'best
guess' and I'm happy to have more than one possibility suggested
for this `jagged peak'."
David Basset is a mountaineer with vast experience of Mt.
Rainier and surrounding peaks. He responded:
"The jagged peak you are referring to is clearly Little Tahoma.
It is jagged because it is unglaciated and very steep. It rises
from the base of Mt. Rainier on the East or Southeast side. You
said the observation was taken from the west or southwest. This
might be troubling because it is on the other side of the
mountain, but rest assured, Little Tahoma is the peak. It stands
out, being much higher than any other mountain close to
Rainier".
Located at Mt. Rainier National Park, Chris Trotter, the Park
Guide and Douglas Kraus, the Park Naturalist, confirmed:
"The consensus from my co-workers is that the 'jagged peak' is
Little Tahoma. This peak can be seen from many areas around the
mountain. Mt. Rainier is said to rise 11,000 feet from its
base".
Little Tahoma (or Tacoma) was indeed the only peak which seemed
to match Arnold's description and it could have been visible
from his location.
If now resolved, the repercussions are fundamental.
Arnold, flying more or less eastwards towards Mt. Rainier's
slopes, consistently and repeatedly clarified how the nine
objects, travelling southwards, passed directly in front of him
on the western slopes of Mt. Rainier.
However, Little Tahoma is on the mountain's far eastern side, as
can be seen from the following map:
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/voyager/rainier.jpg
The obvious conclusion - Arnold misperceived how those nine
objects momentarily disappeared behind this remote peak. In
fact, they absolutely must have passed in front of it.
As Arnold confirmed he relied on the apparent, fleeting
disappearance behind a far-off peak to establish the objects'
distance, that perspective is evidently unreliable and analogous
to the situation Kottmeyer theorised:
"Normally one prefers early accounts to later ones, but the
Congress memoir may provide the clue to what happened here. When
the object turned flatwise, the optical thickness likely dropped
below the one half minute resolution limit and briefly dropped
from sight. The rough surface of the mountain provided
opportunities for an illusory correlation of the disappearance
to some feature of the mountain. The disappearance seemed to be
caused by an intervening feature where none in fact existed.
With no firm lower distance estimate, the way is opened for the
objects being closer to Arnold than he had surmised".
It's Kottmeyer's latter argument which is now significantly
established.
Kottmeyer further reasoned that this allowed for the possibility
that our nine unidentified aerial artefacts could have been
Swans.
I have previously published the results of my ensuing research,
when Arnold's description of the object's quite distinctive
flight characteristics were discussed with knowledgeable Pacific
North-west ornithologists. They immediately recognised that
these quite specific characteristics were consistent with a
formation of south-bound, failed-breeder, American White
Pelicans (AWP).
The background to this story can be found on my web site at:
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/voyager/
It's taken over two years further research to fully understand
this possibility in an explainable and sustainable context.
To briefly recap, beyond any dispute now are the following facts
concerning these birds:
1. They are the largest species in North America and amongst the
biggest in the world. Although an extremely rare sighting in the
Cascade mountain range and almost certainly a species Arnold
would never have considered, they continue to be recorded in the
vicinity as high altitude migrants.
2. Predominately white, with black wing-tips, they are highly
reflective, being referred to as "sparkling" and "flashing" in
the far distance, even when effectively lost from sight (see the
aforementioned material on my web site).
'Collins Encyclopaedia of Animals', [p 438], also notes:
"The surface structure of the feathers may affect a bird's
appearance in other ways. In certain birds, including pelicans,
terns and petrels, some black pigmented feathers in the wings
may in fact have a silvery appearance.
The silver gleam is caused by light reflected from very long,
fine, non-pigmented fibres in the feathers".
3. They fly with an undulating motion like a roller coaster and
exactly as Arnold attributed to the enigmatic observation.
Arnold stated: "As I described them at the time their flight was
like speed boats on rough water or similar to the tail of a
Chinese kite that I once saw blowing in the wind".
Comparatively, in an article entitled, 'Pelicans', by G.
Alexander Virden, the writer recalls his own encounter with a
much larger formation, witnessed from the ground: "They appear
as crepe paper strips, tied to an invisible wind".
4. They employ a distinctive flapping and gliding motion, often
sailing for long periods on their massive wings.
As Arnold described how the nine objects "fluttered and sailed",
this is such an obvious correlation.
It must be accepted that whatever Arnold witnessed, those nine
objects were at least amazingly similar to a formation of AWPs.
This perhaps appreciably indicates what is clearly the most
likely resolution of Arnold's encounter, especially adding the
realisation that as Arnold's perception of distance was
manifestly mistaken, his size and speed estimates can be
expected to contain consequential misperceptions.
Any objections why this would be improbable must take into
account Arnold's second 'mass UFO' sighting - he had in total
some five alleged UFO encounters - when he observed, "a cluster
of about twenty to twenty-five brass coloured objects that
looked like ducks" and which were two or three feet in diameter.
Arnold claimed, "I knew they were not ducks because ducks don't
fly that fast".
Ducks are in fact known to be capable of airspeeds reaching
75mph and there seems little, if any, doubt these were birds,
probably ducks, and not a miniature alien invasion fleet.
Yet Arnold didn't recognise this, even though they statedly came
within 400 yards of his aircraft and he also noted, "I was a
little bit shocked and exited when I realized they had the same
flight characteristics of the large objects I had observed on
June 24".
It seems such an extraordinarily blatant clue to the overall
explanation, even if we can't understand why it wasn't equally
so to Kenneth Arnold.
We shouldn't overlook either that those objects were never
saucer-shaped, plus confirmed by Arnold to be extremely thin, or
that there was not long afterwards, a striking 'flying disc'
encounter nearby:
'New Westminster British Columbian'
Saturday, July 12, 1947
'SAYS FLYING SAUCERS ARE PELICANS'
Spokane, Wash., July 12 (BUP).
A veteran Northwest Airlines pilot who has flown over the
Pacific northwest's 'flying saucer' country for 15 years today
took all the glamor out of the mystery of the flying discs.
All that people have been seeing, he said, are pelicans. Or
maybe geese or swans.
Capt. Gordon Moore disclosed that he and his co-pilot, Vern
Kesler were saucer-hunting last Wednesday on a regular flight
between here and Portland, Ore. Kesler was sure he had seen some
flying saucers on July 2, and the pilots were armed with movie
cameras and binoculars for another encounter.
'Suddenly we spotted nine big round disks weaving northward two
thousand feet below us,' Moore related.
'We investigated and found they were real all right --- real
pelicans'."
As I've said before, if the above sighting had been unresolved,
it would possibly have become a classic 'flying saucer' tale,
cited as important evidence corroborating Arnold's observation.
These 'saucers' even "weaved", just like Arnold described.
And if anyone had suggested they might have been nine American
White Pelicans, why that would in all probability be quite
absurd.
O0O~O0O~O0O~O0O
2. Aliens Killed My Dog and Made Me Poor - Send Money.
I'm not sure what the attraction is in the Cascades, however,
another purported nearby alien encounter was featured at the
recent Nevada 'International UFO Congress'. This extract comes
from the background narrative, which can be read at:
http://www.odysseylink.net/The%20Story.htm
"This is a true story with profound implications. It is the
story of Jonathan Reed, PhD. a research psychologist living, at
the time of his encounter, near Seattle, Washington State in the
U.S.
Dr. Reed met a strange creature which was later determined to be
an extraterrestrial, while hiking in the Cascade Mountains near
Seattle with his seven year old Golden Retriever, Suzy, in
October of 1996. He confronted, and apparently killed the being
after it had killed and destroyed Suzy.
Dr. Reed has been in hiding after disclosing his encounter to
certain organizations and close friends. His bank account was
drained, his college transcripts erased and his career and
credentials obliterated".
We have come to expect no less. What kind of reputable alien
attack/cover-up witness would be able to verify their claimed
credentials, for goodness sake.
It might get the subject a respectable name.
Although understandable why it's considered to be a pretty awful
hoax, what's the difference between this tale of alien terror
and those which have long since been the central feature of most
'UFO' conferences?
Wasn't the 'Brooklyn Bridge' alien kidnap story, co-authored by
Budd Hopkins and the person supposedly abducted in her nightie,
regarded as equally ludicrous? Yet, whilst Reed and his partner,
Robert Raith, are accused of being out to make a fast buck and
looking for a book deal, etc., Hopkins has reportedly made more
than a few bucks on several books.
Is it that the Reed/Raith story is such a barefaced fraud and
doesn't merit comparison? If so, then why, we might ask, were
the perpetrators invited to dupe a gullible audience and where
were objections from the many other participants, largely
representative of current UFO related beliefs and publications.
Perhaps as so much of their own material, i.e., MJ-12, alien
implants, ice crystals attacking earth, Billy Meier and others'
portfolios of hoaxed 'flying saucer' photos, secret underground
alien bases, etc. is debatably on a par with Reed and Raith's,
it was thought best to 'look the other way'. Anyhow, what would
be the point, apparently the audience loved Reed's compelling
account and were hostile towards any voiced suggestions it might
not be, you know, 'real'.
Yes of course it's all now a circus and the promoters know
exactly what sells books, magazines and seats.
STEP RIGHT UP folks - see the FERRRocious alien, bravely
captured by your poor, guest speaker. This is the beast from
beyond that ate his dog. Oops, my mistake, that's actually
Michael Hesemann...
Prior to the conference, a lone voice of protest and calling for
some common sense was Royce J. Myers III. Royce has set up a web
site entitled, 'UFO Hall of Frauds, Dirtbags, Dupes and Morons',
at:
http://home.earthlink.net/~ufowatchdog/
An ongoing project, we can only trust he has Gigabytes of
available web space.
O0O~O0O~O0O~O0O
3. Introspection.
Perhaps one surprising omission from the Nevada trail was Nick
Pope, a UK government employee and acknowledged believer that
aliens are in fact kidnapping people in their nighties - the
victims being in nighties of course, not the ET kidnappers,
although who knows. This is of course when they're not, as Pope
also claims to believe, creating crop circles [it's doubtless a
busy night schedule].
In previous newsletters, I've highlighted how his contention to
have investigated 'alien abductions', crop circles and 'cattle
mutilations', on behalf of HM Government, is evidently somewhat
removed from the facts.
It seems Mr Pope is rather miffed about this exposure and
especially the letter I obtained from the MoD, confirming that
Pope's duties - he once had a clerical role in the Ministry of
Defence (MoD) office which handles 'UFO' reports - were rather
more mundane than perhaps he has portrayed:
"The main duties of the post concern non-operational RAF
activities overseas and diplomatic clearance policy for military
flights abroad".
"The Ministry of Defence has not investigated a case of alien
abduction, crop circle formations or animal mutilation".
The Ministry's letter can be seen at:
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/voyager/mod.jpg
Many people in the UFO community, including Pope, apparently
make a lot of money selling and promoting books with tales about
ET's temporarily removing folks for a quick 'physical' et al and
yet some are now reportedly complaining that the promotion of
Reed and Raith's chronicles are ruining any scientific
credibility the UFO subject might have.
Is this what's known as a 'can of worms'?
O0O~O0O~O0O~O0O
4. The Alien Autopsy and Some Intriguing Connections.
Although Reed has a photograph of his (presumed) rubber model
alien, it's no-where near the quality of our beloved 'alien
autopsy' creature.
What follows is a facet of the alien autopsy story, yet to be
told.
During August 1996, Graham Birdsall, editor of 'UFO Magazine'
(UK) was contacted by someone called James Toledano, who said
his father was a co-owner of the 'alien autopsy' footage. At the
time, James Toledano worked for a company called Webmedia, who
design web sites and have a number of 'blue chip' companies
amongst their clients.
He explained that a web site called 'Area 51' was to be launched
and would be used in marketing 'sensational' new video footage
which had been secretly smuggled out of 'Area 51' and showed an
alien, if I recall correctly, being interrogated.
This may have some connection to the dreadful 'alien
interrogation' film which subsequently appeared - additional
background can be found at:
http://www.ufomind.com/area51/interrogation/
Graham was asked if 'UFO Magazine' would be interested in taking
out some advertising on the site.
As I had researched the background of Ray Santilli's companies,
the name Toledano wasn't unfamiliar; one of Santilli's business
partners was Joshua Toledano. I asked Santilli if he could
comment on this new development and he was adamant that Joshua
(Joe) Toledano had nothing whatsoever to do with the 'alien
autopsy' film.
I telephoned James Toledano and asked if he could elaborate on
this new footage. However, there was the distinct impression
that in the meantime someone must have 'had a word' with
Toledano, who acknowledged being the son of Santilli's partner.
There was no story, no footage, nothing and Graham Birdsall must
have been imagining things, or words to that effect, claimed
Toledano Jnr.
I contacted him again later and he was no less contrite.
My conclusion was that by apparently attempting to cash-in on
the 'alien autopsy' hype, James Toledano had compromised the
ongoing marketing by Santilli and whomever else was making money
from it. Toledano's contact with Birdsall, a staunch critic of
the 'autopsy' film, was perhaps naive and in short, Toledano had
been persuaded to rapidly backtrack on the entire story.
However, I have now uncovered significant new evidence and for
the first time ever, it can be conclusively shown why there is
some substance behind these alleged events.
The UK domain name registration records confirm:
Domain Name: AREA51.CO.UK
Registered For: James Toledano
Domain Registered By: NETNAMES
Registered on 22-Aug-1996.
Record last updated on 26-Nov-1997 by zahoor@webmedia.com
[End]
The domain has remained inactive since being registered.
More of interest in this overall periphery is a stunning
connection between James Toledano, Webmedia and someone who is
probably the foremost candidate and 'suspect' for creating the
original 'alien autopsy' footage.
He is a model maker and sculptor, also renowned as a creator of
imagery which challenges perceptions of the 'mysterious' and
'unexplained'. He is especially interested in creating artefacts
which might, and almost guaranteed will, be professed by others
as of 'alien' origin.
And aside from that, he's a thoroughly nice bloke.
More will be revealed as this unfolds.
Incidentally, before anyone cries, 'hoaxers and fakers - the
scourge of serious research', perhaps they might take a good
look at what's on offer from their next UFO publication or
conference.
O0O~O0O~O0O~O0O
5. Lost and Found One ET Spaceship - Contact the Weather Bureau.
When Mac Brazel did find that ostensibly unfamiliar 'Roswell'
debris on the Foster ranch, we might understand why he thought
it was an unusual device which had crashed down from the sky.
Surely therefore, he takes any wreckage samples - which could be
from a secret US test flight or even proof of a Russian threat -
to the military, or at least the local law enforcement. No.
Something persuades Brazel that the most likely and sensible way
of identifying this extraordinary debris is by going straight
to... the weather bureau.
Though you may not find it being highlighted by believers in an
'alien spaceship crash', according to Brazel's son, that's
exactly what his late father did. It was the Roswell weather
bureau who suggested he contact Sheriff Wilcox.
"I am sure that what I found was not any weather observation
balloon", Brazel reportedly protested when the debris material
had been identified.
So, why did he take it straight to the weather bureau and not
the police or military?
O0O~O0O~O0O~O0O
6. Ever Decreasing Circles.
Try as we might, there's no escape from it though; Arnold -
Roswell - 'Alien Autopsy'. One provides a foundation for the
other.
As we go to press, allegedly a new anonymous witness, a former
serviceman stationed at Roswell Army Air Force base, has come
forward to declare that both the Roswell crash and 'alien
autopsy' creatures are real. He knows, 'cos he was there,
naturally. See:
http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/2000/apr/m01-002.shtmlhttp://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/2000/apr/m06-003.shtmlhttp://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/2000/apr/m07-002.shtml
Compared to the testimony which Ray Santilli swears originated
from the anonymous cameraman who filmed the crash site and
autopsies, this avowed new witness reportedly maintains that the
incident took place at a different date and location.
Furthermore, whilst the cameraman 'testifies' it was "a large
disc 'flying saucer' on its back", our new witness recalls, it
"looked like a damn stingray, with weird tile like objects under
it that had a faint glow" [this seems to draw on the 'Frank
Kaufmann' Roswell lore].
Where we really need to re-write the Roswell 'flying saucer'
legend [what, again...] and seemingly our understanding of
history, is the assertion that this new witness was debriefed by
the 'Department of Defense'.
No mistake, apparently, as "He clearly remembers that it was the
DOD who told him to keep quiet. Two men in suits; the CO wasn't
there. He had never heard of the DOD before and therefore it
stuck in his mind".
It's unlikely anyone had heard about the Department of Defense
in early July, 1947, as it's forerunner, the National Military
Establishment didn't come into existence until 26 July, 1947 and
that wasn't redesignated as the Department of Defense until
August, 1949...
If there's a theme to this newsletter, perhaps it's that the
most conspicuous clues to solving any mystery should be
recognised and never dismissed as too obvious. Otherwise, what
happens when we do come across simple, if surprisingly mundane,
explanations or outright hoaxes.
O0O~O0O~O0O~O0O
James Easton,
Editor.
E-mail: voyager@ukonline.co.uk
Voyager On-line: http://web.ukonline.co.uk/voyager/
(c) James Easton
April 2000